Gun-Free Zone Pseudo Myths

While it has come up here several times recently that there are major shootings in locations that are not gun-free zones (though some folks continue to relate that mass shootings seem to only occur there), I compiled a short list of mass or intended mass shootings (poor marksmanship resulted in the shooter not hitting intended targets sometimes) that happened in locations where the intended victims or other folks with/around the intended victims could have been armed or could have had access to guns, may have been expected to be armed, or were expected to be armed. In some cases, mass shooting attacks were specifically directed at law enforcement.

This is compiled from internet information. Additions or corrections would be great. None of the places included are places that I could find any statments of being necessarily gun-free. Any such shooting I found where it was posted, company policy, etc., I left out except in the case of the attacks on the police where obviously they were armed.

What is apparent is that while the media really hypes a lot of the cop, school, church, and mall shootings, there is considerable downplay of localized events that often result in more deaths and/or injuries than some of the more notable examples. However, the local event, such as domestic homicide involving immediate and sometimes even extended family situations in multiple locations, often fail to become major national news or sustained national news. I would be willing to bet that a lot of these events are not familiar to TFL members despite the claims that the media is out to get us as gun owners. If so, they have really missed a lot of oppotunities. In short, if they don't think they will get big ratings, they don't seem to care.

New Year's Eve 1972 to 7 January 1973 - Mark James Robert Essex killed 9 (including 5 police officers) and wounded 13 more (including 5 more officers), starting his spree by attacking a New Orleans Police Department jail facility.

So we have several mass (4 or more at once) and/or spree (2 or more in 2 or more locations) shootings that turned out to be a lot more than I expected. Mass shootings in the homes were often in homes where gun ownership was known.

Plenty of mass and/or spree shootings occur in non-gun-free zones. Don't be fooled into believing that gun-free zones are the primary targets of the shooters. This does not seem to be the case. More often than not, the location of the shooting, gun-free or not, is where the shooter has had problems or is a location of a person or people where the shooter has had problems. Most notable exceptions would be robbery-type events where the robber(s) and victim(s) don't necessarily even known one another. Plus, there are some additional truly random events in the sense that the shooter has no association with the victims at all. Obviously, these types of situations can happen to virtually anyone and seemingly in very random places.

1975 - Easter Sunday Massacre - James Urban Ruppert murdered 11 family members in his mother's house at 635 Minor Avenue in Hamilton, Ohio.

1982 - George Emil Banks, a former Camp Hill prison guard, shot 13 people to death in Wilkes-Barre City and Jenkins Township, Pennsylvania, including five of his own children.

1987 - Ronald Gene Simmons, Sr., (July 15, 1940 – June 25, 1990) was a retired United States Air Force master sergeant who killed 16 people over a weeklong period in 1987. Fourteen of the victims were members of his family, including a daughter he had sexually abused and the child he had fathered with her. He also wounded four others, Arkansas.

1993 - Branch Davidians mass murder of numerous members in compound by firearm to prevent flight when building caught on fire. Autopsy records indicate that at least 20 Davidians were shot, including five children under the age of 14.

2000 - Whicita Horror/Massacre, spree perpetrated by brothers Reginald and Jonathan Carr, killing 5 and wounding a 5th over a period several days including committing assault, rape, and robbery.

2004 Chai Soua Vang, a 35-year-old Hmong immigrant and naturalized U.S. citizen, shot eight people while deer hunting east of Birchwood in northern Wisconsin.

2004 - McKinney, Texas, three robbers (Eddie Williams, Javier Cortez, and Raul Cortez) killed a check cashing store employee, her nephew, and his two friends in the home of the employee, Rosa Barbosa.

2005 - Seven people were killed and four wounded when Terry Michael Ratzmann opened fire at a Living Church of God service at the Sheraton Hotel in Brookfield. Ratzmann, a 44-year-old computer technician, then committed suicide (Wisconsin) (hotel not posted).

2005 - Courthouse Square, Tyler, Texas, David Hernandez Arroyo Sr. killing 2 and wounding 4. Mark Wilson responded from his residence above the square and was killed after wounding Arroyo and being credited with saving lives. As this happened outside of the courthouse, Arroyo expected law enforcement and wore a fragmentation vest and ballistic vest.

2006 - The Hamilton Avenue Murders is the colloquial name for the mass murder of seven people in a house at 560 North Hamilton Avenue in Indianapolis, Indiana by James Stewart and Desmond Turner during a murder-robbery.

2007 - Six were killed in Delavan when Ambrosio Analco entered an upper flat and shot his twin infant boys, his estranged wife, her sister and a friend. Analco, 23, then shot and killed himself (Wisconsin).

2007 - a woman and her boyfriend shot dead six members of her family on Christmas Eve in Carnation, Washington.

2007 - Youth with a Mission Center and New Life Church shootings by Matthew J. Murray (Colorado), killing 2 and injuring 2 at YWAM and later that day killing 3 (including self) and injuring 3 at New Life. Before the suicide, was shot by former police officer and volunteer security for the church).

2008 - Dallas' LBJ Freeway Shooting Spree happened 3 days before Christmas. Jorge Lopez and William Scott Miller were killed by former Utah highway patrolman Brian Smith. Smith attempted to shoot people in several vehicles, injuring at least two others. He later shot himself and died the next day.

2008 - Skagit County Shooting Spree, Isaac Zamora killed 6 including a deputy and injured two more during a shooting spree near his home and during a high speed chase on I-5.

2008 - Santa Claus (Jeffrey Pardo) opened fire at a party of his exwife and ex-inlaws in Covina, CA, set the house on fire, committed suicide (8+1).

2009 - Pittsburgh, PA 3 cops killed and 2 wounded by Richard Poplawski who ambushed officers arriving on scene for a domestic dispute. Cops fired more than 600 rounds at Poplawski who was wearing a ballistic vest.

2009 - Michael Kenneth McLendon went on a shooting spree spanning 2 counties in southern Alabama, killing 10 other than himself. Along the way, he shot at various people and vehicles and even stories such as Wal-mart and Piggly Wiggly.

2009 - Carthage, NC, Robert Stewart killed 8 in nursing home shooting (where his wife worked) and 3 officers were injured as well.

2009 - Six people, including one student, were shot in a drive-by shooting at a community rally on the campus of Texas Southern University, Houston. (outside areas, streets, etc. not gun-free zones).

2010 - Christopher Speight killed 8 in Virginia home.

2011 - Giffords shooting, Tucson, AZ. Jared Loughner opened fire, killing 6, wounding 13, plus there was 1 additional non-gunfire injury that resulted. CCW person responded to late to be of any use with a gun.

2011 - Mass shooting of family in Wheatland, WY by Everett Conant, killing his 3 sons, brother, and wounding his wife.

2012 - Café Racer, Ian Stawicki killed 4 and wounded the chef before leaving and later attempting to carjack a woman, killing her.

Sure, there are mass/spree shootings in gun-free zones and some have definitely been horrific and of very large scale such as UT and VT school shootings and the media loves these events, but lesser known mass/spree shootings also happen quite a bit too.

I do want to pose the quick question that, while some of these are 'Gun Free Zones,' how many weren't but did have posted 'no guns allowed' signs?

hso

August 29, 2012, 07:43 AM

The gun community meme that mass shootings intentionally take place in "Gun Free Zones" is a myth cooked up by our side. It is embarrassingly easy to debunk.

VA Tech took place because the shooter was a student there not because no one would have a weapon.

The Giffords shooting took place in an unrestricted public setting in a state where anyone could have been armed and where people with CCW were nearby.

The Aurora shooter picked a place where he'd have concentration of victims that had poor opportunity for escape. Anyone could have been carrying in spite of the "gun buster" sign on the door of the theater.

Carl N. Brown

August 29, 2012, 08:24 AM

The important thing to me in mass shootings in designated "gun free" zones is that the "no gun" signs deterred the lawabiding from carrying in practically every incident reported, but did not deter the mass murderer.

In the Appalachian Law School shooting, the two off-duty police officers who were students abided by the law and left their personal guns in their vehicles in the parking lot; the killer did not. In Tennessee, business and schools can elect to bar you from even having gun in your car in their parking lot. They were able to intervene after retrieving their guns, but if the school had barred guns in the parking lot, they probably would have complied with that. Appalachian Law is usually cited as an instance of a potential mass shooting stopped by armed citizens.

I would limit any list to mass shootings not involving police. (1) They are a diff category than the others and (2) they are too controversial politically to allow you to follow a theme.
1993 - Branch Davidians mass murder of numerous members in compound by firearm to prevent flight when building caught on fire. Autopsy records indicate that at least 20 Davidians were shot, including five children under the age of 14.
According to the Texas medical examiner, the Davidians with gunshot wounds were in locations where they were surrounded by fire; flight was not an option, and he has told anyone who cares to listen that he considered those shootings to be mercy killings of and by people burning to death. You get sidetracked by bringing up such incidents.

Steel Horse Rider

August 29, 2012, 09:27 AM

In the Branch Davidian example you left out the involvement of the government who initiated the entire slaughter.

gbeecher

August 29, 2012, 10:25 AM

Jeremiah 17:9 says, 'The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?' Criminals and evil persons will continue to do what they have always done and laws will not stop them. Rules and laws are made to establish order in society and are only worthwhile if they can be reasonably and effectively enforced, do the most good for the largest number of people, and protect the liberty of the individual. :(

hso

August 29, 2012, 10:36 AM

In the Appalachian Law School shooting, the two off-duty police officers who were students abided by the law and left their personal guns in their vehicles in the parking lot; the killer did not.

How do we know they "abided by the law" and didn't just leave their weapons in their vehicle as a matter of course? Without a statement from either of them we're just assuming they elected not to carry because of the law instead of convenience.

Owen Sparks

August 29, 2012, 10:46 AM

All of these places had one thing in commom. They were all MURDER FREE ZONES as murder is illegal everywhere. Anyone willing to comit mass murder will have no problem breaking minor laws in order to facilitate murder.

Skribs

August 29, 2012, 10:52 AM

The gun community meme that mass shootings intentionally take place in "Gun Free Zones" is a myth cooked up by our side. It is embarrassingly easy to debunk.

While this is true, it does show that 1) gun-free zones don't work, and one should easily be able to see that 2) in these scenarios, having a firearm would be one of the few ways to be able to fight back. I know of the Tueller drill, but it the point where he is already firing, all he has to do is notice someone charging in his direction and turn.

So, maybe they don't target "gun free zones" on purpose (some probably do, or they choose which venue based on whether it will be gun free or not), but gun free zones don't prevent criminals from bringing guns in to commit crimes - they DO prevent law abiding citizens from protecting themselves against said criminal.

How was it worded in a sarcastic post a while back? The gun free zone is saying its okay to be afraid of a lunatic with a gun, but carrying a gun to protect against said lunatic is paranoid.

Double Naught Spy

August 29, 2012, 11:35 AM

While this is true, it does show that 1) gun-free zones don't work

We know gun free zones don't work, but we also have lots of folks who apparently 'know' that mass shootings don't occur in non-gun-zones or think that the bad guys just pick gun-free zones because people don't have guns there. There aren't many instances where people who have committed mass shootings in gun-free zones didn't already have problems with people in those zones. Many of the gun-free zone shootings are disgruntled employees. Note that they don't go to some other business and shoot it up because it is closer, an easier target, or otherwise more convenient. They go to where the problem was and do it.

Turns out as hso and Owen have echoed, these events happen plenty in non-gun-free zones. Bad guys attack whomever they please and when they please. For example, Arroyo picked a non-gun-free zone in a CHL state, but when to where his ex-wife was. He just prepared better than most.

Also, many of the gun-free zone shootings start of with murders in non-gun-free zones, such as with Charlie Whitman.

All this goes hand-in-hand with the incorrectly conceived notions that gun stores are safe from robbery, shootings don't happen at police stations and gun ranges. Of course these things happen. It may not be logical that they happen, but the perps doing these things often don't share our logic and love of life.

However, I will offer this challenge/request for help. Of the surviving gun-free zone shooters or from the letters left behind by those who were killed that shot up locations where they had not had trouble previously, how many have mentioned that they picked a particular location because they expected little or no firearms resistence? I am sure there has to be some documentation of this. Folks that shoot up locations where they have not had trouble probably do have some criteria for selecting those locations and it would be interesting to see how many include the notion of the locations being gun-free.

I don't offer this challenge as being antagonistic, but because I can't find the examples, but I keep thinking I have come across one or two previously. I just don't know where.

Skribs

August 29, 2012, 11:46 AM

My point was that gun-free zones disarm me, and do not disarm him. Therefore, it only stops the law-abiding citizen from exercizing his rights, and does not actually do anything to prevent crime.

hso

August 29, 2012, 11:50 AM

I am sure there has to be some documentation of this.

There probably isn't. This may be because leaving any documentation or making a statement is unlikely addressing this OR it may be because it is only a consideration in our minds and not the deranged minds of mass murderers.

Double Naught Spy

August 29, 2012, 12:14 PM

My point was that gun-free zones disarm me, and do not disarm him.
Yeah, we know how they work. Got it. That wasn't ever in doubt. This isn't a thread on if gun-free zones are bad or how they work. If you want to debate that, then feel free to start another thread. You have no disagreement from me. However, this thread is about the fact that gun-free zones are far from being the only places targeted by mass shooters despite the recurring claims that gun-free zones are picked because they are gun free....despite the fact as hso pointed out...

There probably isn't {any information from the shooters to support the claim}.

Skribs

August 29, 2012, 12:26 PM

I understand your position. I was saying that in reality, it doesn't matter much whether they target it because it is a gun free zone or it isn't. The reason why the myth was created is because of how the zones work, and the myth isn't necessarily false - someone could choose a location based on the chance of armed resistance.

jon_in_wv

August 29, 2012, 12:40 PM

Yeah, we know how they work. Got it. That wasn't ever in doubt. This isn't a thread on if gun-free zones are bad or how they work. If you want to debate that, then feel free to start another thread. You have no disagreement from me. However, this thread is about the fact that gun-free zones are far from being the only places targeted by mass shooters despite the recurring claims that gun-free zones are picked because they are gun free....despite the fact as hso pointed out...

You started the thread on the topic, don't get rude if people want to debate it or add their input. That is kind of the point of a forum.

In fact I agree that these shooting don't happen JUST in gun free zones but the fact is gun free zones offer no protection from these types of shootings and do in fact make them more successful and dangerous. Did Brevig target the boys camp in Norway because it was a gun free zone? I don't know but the fact that it was, and and armed police response was a long ways away certainly helped him to make it the most deadly mass shooting in history.

You could also have a list of public shootings that were stopped by concealed carry holders or armed officers that were on the scene. Its all anecdotal and does little to prove the case either way. The idea we just "cooked up" the idea of the dangers of a gun free zone does nothing to improve the situation either. While you can't prove the Aurora theater was targeted because it was a gun free zone you also can't prove his shooting would have been as successful if it wasn't nor can you prove he would have targeted that theater if there was armed security there or that armed citizens couldn't have stopped him. Its all conjecture so lets no act like your personal opinion carries the weight of fact while someone else's doesn't deserve to be heard.

A lot of these were "gun free zones" at the time they happened. Laws change, and many of these shootings occurred before citizens were permitted to carry concealed. Florida issued the first carry permits in 1987, but most states didn't follow suit until years later.

hso

August 29, 2012, 01:56 PM

these types of shootings and do in fact make them more successful and dangerous.

We don't have any indication that this assumption is borne out of fact. So called "gun free zones" haven't been shown to have any impact on potential for a mass shooting or on the severity. We assume that this is the case, but the mass shootings in areas without the posting against carry don't demonstrate any significant difference.

armoredman

August 29, 2012, 02:57 PM

Thank you for the research. It would be interesting to see your list further refined by a few factors - was either CCW or open carry allowed by state/local law in these areas, what was the statistical percentage, at that time, in that area, of CCW permit holders, and I would probably remove any LE only style shootings, as LE can, of course, carry anywhere they need to and far more places a civilian can, for instance, the Detroit police station shootout - I am willing to bet a small amount that other than the shooter, there wasn't another armed civilian inside the station, a classic "no guns" zone. Also, attacking a police station can be more correctly termed, "suicide by cop".
Also, the circumstances surrounding the shooting, such as the fact that Gabby Giffords, an NRA D rated Democrat was meeting her constituents in public, (just down the street from where I was that day, too), not a group normally armed. Second ,if unarmed Arizonans HADN'T disarmed the murderer, the CCW holder might have had to engage him, changing that scenario entirely.
Perhaps we should re-frame the debate to, do "mass shootings" tend to take place in areas that have a less likelihood of holding lawfully armed citizens?

JERRY

August 29, 2012, 03:03 PM

one common denominator, in each of those mass shootings none of the victims shot back at their murderer.

rem44m

August 29, 2012, 03:20 PM

My point was that gun-free zones disarm me, and do not disarm him. Therefore, it only stops the law-abiding citizen from exercizing his rights, and does not actually do anything to prevent crime.

This is always my point whenever this discussion arises.

Skribs

August 29, 2012, 03:23 PM

HSO, I don't have any statistics for the following, but I think it's pretty good common sense:
If I am armed and there is an active shooter, I might be able to stop him, I might not.
If I am unarmed and there is an active shooter, it will be much more difficult to stop him and will require much closer proximity.

Double Naught Spy

August 29, 2012, 03:40 PM

Perhaps we should re-frame the debate to, do "mass shootings" tend to take place in areas that have a less likelihood of holding lawfully armed citizens?

I can't say this is accurate. It would appear that most mass shootings take place in domestic residences where people are not restricted in firearms ownership.

one common denominator, in each of those mass shootings none of the victims shot back at their murderer.

Mark Wilson did, was downed by a single shot from Arroyo, and then Arroyo walked over and delivered a coup de grace before fleeing the Tyler square.

HSO, I don't have any statistics for the following, but I think it's pretty good common sense:

That is good common sense just like concealed carry is good common sense, but concealed carry hasn't reduced violent crime either. It may work better for you as an individual, but as can be seen, folks will engage in mass shootings in non-gun-free zones and do so with regularity. People carrying guns hasn't reduced non-gun-free zone shootings. Being able to defend yourself is great, but this isn't about whether or not you can defend yourself in a gun-free-zone or not. Maybe you didn't catch that.

1911Tuner

August 29, 2012, 03:53 PM

How do we know they "abided by the law" and didn't just leave their weapons in their vehicle as a matter of course? Without a statement from either of them we're just assuming they elected not to carry because of the law instead of convenience.

Quite likely they elected to leave their guns. Active...and in many cases auxillary/reserve law enforcement officers...are allowed to carry on a campus.

The gun community meme that mass shootings intentionally take place in "Gun Free Zones" is a myth cooked up by our side. It is embarrassingly easy to debunk.

While this is fundamentally true, the fact is that most of them do take place in posted gun free zones. Whether the shooters deliberately target these places or not is up for debate...and it will probably never be answered definitively...because so many of them off themselves when they run dry or get tired of killing or are surrounded by the police.

One thing remains a safe bet, if not a certainty. In a "Gun Free" zone, they're doubtless aware that the likelihood of an armed citizen raining on their parade is low.

hso

August 29, 2012, 05:02 PM

I think it's pretty good common sense

But the problem is that common sense isn't. The information provided indicates that the common sense assumption is incorrect. Do we cling to it because it fits our faith or do we accept the fact that it doesn't make any difference to the murderer.

That doesn't negate our argument that if "I" carry I'm safer from these incidents. It simply means that posting against carry makes no statistical difference in whether a place is selected or not for a mass shooting.

they're doubtless aware that the likelihood of an armed citizen raining on their parade is low

I actually do doubt that it is given any consideration. Mass shootings aren't carried out by "normal" criminals looking for easy prey. They are fundamentally different from the people who want to make a life of crime.

jon_in_wv

August 29, 2012, 09:44 PM

I think there is a difference between a mass shooting at a public place and a home style family shooting. Its not really analogous to compare the two.

hso

August 29, 2012, 10:19 PM

I agree that a mass shooting where the shooter has a relationship with someone at the location is different than the other types like Batman or Giffords.

razorback2003

August 29, 2012, 10:20 PM

Many of these shootings happen where people could legally carry a handgun if they wanted to.

Even at the Va Tech incident, a student could legally carried a handgun under VA law with a license. The student would have been breaking school POLICY, but not law.

There just aren't a lot of people that carry handguns in public. I would bet that even though TN has 3-5% of the adult population licensed, that most people get a license to legally keep a handgun in the car.

hso

August 29, 2012, 10:21 PM

Agreed.

Double Naught Spy

August 29, 2012, 11:51 PM

I think there is a difference between a mass shooting at a public place and a home style family shooting. Its not really analogous to compare the two.

I get your point, but don't agree and I don't agree because there is no definitional difference between the two and nobody seems to care about it when it comes up for discussion when they occur in gun-free zones. In fact, I would say that you are the first person I have seen suggest they should not be compared. They may not be analogous, but they are homologous.

Not only that, but most workplace mass shootings, while usually not family, do also involve the same concept of familiarity. The shooter knows most or all of his/her victims and often targets specific ones, sometimes to the point of being sure that others are allowed to leave safely.

Now if you wished to separate out mass shootings where the shooter did know his victims from shooters who did not, that might be an interesting distinction, but even in many of those cases, the shooter started out by killing people known to him/her first such as with Whitman and Cho.

If you think about it, you can come up with all sorts of distinctions.
Robbery mass shooting...
Family
Workplace (disgruntled employee)
School (student shooter)
Family workplace
Crazy person (e.g. Sylvia Seegrist)
Mall shooters
Maybe crazy (Carson City IHOP)
There are the shooters like Cho and Whitman who seem to be bent on killing all that they can kill before being stopped and those like Peter O. that have particular targets in mind and stop shooting after accomplishing their goal.

...and on and on and on. There are really a lot of ways you could break things down to separate out shootings and then say they aren't comparable because they don't share whatever distinction trait you think is important, but the bottom line of the mass shooting is that it involves 4 or more people and if you are in one, it doesn't matter if it is a family or non-family mass shooting, does it? At the root of it you are still left with the individual who is shooting multiple people and this happens in gun-free zones and non-gun-free zones.

So with that said, why would you say that they are not comparable and what does not being comparable mean regarding mass shootings? I disagree with you so far, but maybe only because I don't see the justification behind your statement. The statement itself doesn't shed light on a justification.

waterhouse

August 30, 2012, 10:31 AM

DNS, in general I agree with your your thought process. However, in terms of your examples, I do believe there is a difference between a single location, single time events and something that is more spread out over several locations and time periods.

Even with really excellent situational awareness, some reaction time is necessary. If a citizen had been carrying in Aurora, but they were the first victim and had no time to get their gun out, it would not do much good. In cases where an active shooter leaves a scene and starts shooting somewhere else, there are several "first victims" and there is shock/reaction time at each new scene before anyone could respond.

Again, I agree with you and HSO, in that I think Virginia Tech was chosen not because it was gun free but because it was the shooter's school. I also agree with members who stated that gun free zones don't work, but that isn't the point of your thread.

I would also argue that while the percentage of society that carries a firearm is very small, the percentage of those who regularly carry a firearm who also carry while in their house is smaller still. While many of us realize that getting into danger in public is a possibility, although a remote one, most people tend to feel safe in their own homes. A husband shooting his wife, her mother, and the kids, although technically a mass shooting, seems different to me than a mass shooting on the street or a movie theater. You can argue that the wife and her mother both were allowed to carry in their home, which is fair, but I see domestic violence as separate from public, random victim mass shootings.

I think the Giffords shooting is a good example of a mass shooting in a non gun free zone, and I'm sure there are many others.

hso

August 30, 2012, 11:28 AM

Where a mass shooting occurs because the shooter has a bad relationship with someone at the location is different than when they have no personal relationship as the basis for the shooting, but I wonder if the dynamics are the same in that they're not expecting to go on to carry out another mass shooting, even though they may not have decided to shoot anyone but the particular person they have that relationship with when they headed out.

Standard criminal predator - easy target to avoid personal injury/capture so they can go on with their life of crime/violence

Shooting where the shooter has a personal relationship - broken personal relationship (boss, spouse, family, partner), they may pick a time/place that optimizes their ability to carry out the shooting, but aren't as concerned with the risk. No expectation so no plan for what to do after.

Shooting where the shooter has no personal relationship - no broken true personal relationship for basis of selection of where/when so the time and place may not have anything to do with what we would see as a motive other than proximity/familiarity/convenience/bad service/fantasy due to psychosis. There's no thought as to opposition or aftermath, just body count and no deterrence other than physically barring access.

TX1911fan

August 30, 2012, 05:01 PM

DNS, I like this information. Thanks for providing it. I think what it says to me most is that something like this can happen ANYWHERE and hence I should be, and should have the right to be, as prepared as possible should it happen. I may not be able to do anything to stop it or save my life, but I'd rather go out firing than hiding.

One_Jackal

August 30, 2012, 06:53 PM

First, let me write a disclaimer: I am not a murderer nor do I have any intention of taking anyone's life. I respect gun buster signs and secure my weapons when I enter a building with a gun buster sign.

If I was planning a mass murder I wouldn't care about the circumstances. I know in the end I will die, any collateral damage is just part of the process. Whatever my reason or goal might be that would be my main objective. Since I would be on a death mission an armed citizen would not be a deterrent, after all I am ready to take on the police department. My logic would be the armed citizen is outgunned. If he wants to play a movie character or be a hero there is no spot in Arlington, VA for him, just a grave. Then I would execute my mission...

TrickyDick

August 30, 2012, 09:03 PM

Waco: they did not murder them, they spared them from being burnt alive by the ATF

1911Tuner

August 31, 2012, 05:24 AM

. Since I would be on a death mission an armed citizen would not be a deterrent.

Unless said armed citizen decked you the instant that you walked in and started shooting. A bullet through the ol' wishbone is a pretty effective deterrent.

Even if you get lucky enough to see him make his move in time to shoot him first, he dies on his feet fighting for his life instead of on his knees begging for it. Pretty much a no-brainer...at least for me.

Double Naught Spy

August 31, 2012, 09:13 AM

DNS, I like this information. Thanks for providing it.

Glad you do. Here is more that you will like even more and it is one I missed.

2012 - Sacramento, CA home invasion, Xue Lor killed 3 and wounded a 4th before being shot and killed himself by the murdered couple's son. So this is another instance in a mass shooting where somebody has shot back and changed the intended outcome.

Whether in a gun-free zone or not, guns may or may not be the right answer to the problem, or discharging or the amount of discharge (e.g., see NYPD shooting lots of folks in addition to the only actual threat, the murderer of the Empire State Building employee). For example, tackling active shooters and shooters threatening to go active has stopped lots of shootings. No doubt it is dangerous and has shortcomings, but so too can have a gun as Mark Wilson found out. However, you decide to respond, you need to be smart about it.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=436861&highlight=tackling

2012 - PORT ST. JOHN, Fl, Tonya Thomas shoots her 4 children and kills self, but doesn't manage to kill 3 of them the first time who fled to the neighbor's home, but the mother called for them to come back where she finished them off. OMG.

I thought I would try supplementing the list by using different search methods. On second thought, searching by number of murdered by shooting is likely to produce a giant listing when domestic events. I can put one together if more needs to be shown that these events happen more often than ever expected by us because we don't see them on the news when they are just treated as local events, but I think the point may have been made already. Just know that you can be over at your cousin's house when her ex-boyfriend shows up to kill her and anyone else there, despite it not being a gun-free zone. I will look for more public shootings in non-gun-free areas.

Nuclear

August 31, 2012, 03:33 PM

For all of these stats and arguments, I've yet to find one instance of a mass shooting at a gun range (as opposed to a gun shop) or a gun show. So mass murders never have problems with someone at a range or gun show?

These homicidal criminals rarely pick a situation where they know their victims will be armed or prepared for violence. I've never heard of a murder at a martial arts school either. They pick places where people feel safe and won't be armed or resist, they want their victims to die in fear. So I am always less comfortable places where I cannot carry a weapon.

Of course these are just my observations and conclusions. I know bad things can happen anywhere, as I've been assaulted when I was younger while walking in my neighborhood and another time at a friend's apartment during a birthday party. Both were by people with who I had no previous negative interactions.

akodo

August 31, 2012, 06:51 PM

So called "gun free zones" haven't been shown to have any impact on potential for a mass shooting or on the severity. We assume that this is the case, but the mass shootings in areas without the posting against carry don't demonstrate any significant difference.

Pearl Mississippi School Shooting

While the student didn't seek out that particular location because it was a 'gun free zone' (he picked it because it was his school) the vice principal who stopped the shooting with his own gun made the very calculated decision to #1 have a gun in his car and #2 park his car off school property so as to obey the law.

He had to run a fair distance and return, all the while the kid was shooting. Had the law been different the VP's decision to always have a gun would probably not have changed, but he would have parked in his designated spot which was right out in front of the school (or possibly kept a gun in his desk)

In this instance while the 'no guns' classification did not ATTRACT a shooter, it did not deter the shooter.

It did significantly slow the ultimately successful armed resistance, increasing the severity of the event (more time for kids to be shot)

Yes, this is just ONE instance, but it is one I remember off the top of my head. I suspect that a careful gleaning of shooting would probably turn over a few more.

akodo

August 31, 2012, 06:54 PM

For all of these stats and arguments, I've yet to find one instance of a mass shooting at a gun range (as opposed to a gun shop) or a gun show. So mass murders never have problems with someone at a range or gun show?

Logical fallacy.

I can list many places where there isn't one instance of mass shootings.

For instance, there has never been a mass shooting in any elephant enclosure in any zoo. It is not logical to derive from that fact the conclusion that all we need to do to prevent shootings is have more elephants everywhere.

Double Naught Spy

August 31, 2012, 08:08 PM

For all of these stats and arguments, I've yet to find one instance of a mass shooting at a gun range (as opposed to a gun shop) or a gun show. So mass murders never have problems with someone at a range or gun show?

Few people spend enough time at gun ranges or gun shows to actually get mad enough to built up and all out assault against occupants there. It isn't that they don't have problems, but that they aren't there very much, very often, and chances are don't really know too many people there either.

These homicidal criminals rarely pick a situation where they know their victims will be armed or prepared for violence.

But they do pick LOTS of situations where people can be armed, often expect armed resistence, and prepare for it.

I've never heard of a murder at a martial arts school either.
There are murders at gun ranges.

As for never hearing of a murder at a martial arts school, maybe you should look around a bit more...
http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=65906

These homicidal criminals rarely pick a situation where they know their victims will be armed or prepared for violence. I've never heard of a murder at a martial arts school either. They pick places where people feel safe and won't be armed or resist, they want their victims to die in fear.

And yet as hso has noted, there isn't any indication of what you are saying for mass murders picking locations where they know folks to be unarmed. In most cases, they don't know if and what folks are unarmed or armed.

They may pick places where people feel safe, but only because people tend not to be in places where they don't feel safe. Imagine that. There is no indication that they pick places BECAUSE people feel safe at those places. The places are simply where the people are that they want to shoot and more often than not, the people are ones with whom the shooter(s) has had conflict, often long term.

jon_in_wv

September 1, 2012, 09:11 AM

Multiple anecdotes do not equal fact. Without including information of mass shootings that were stopped by people with firearms the comparison is without merit in my opinion. Also there is a definite difference between a mass public shooting where the gunman walks into a public place full of strangers and one where they shooter knows the people he is going after. If he knows the people, their habits, what weapons they have, where they are, how they will react, and a HOST of other factors it changes the nature of the event completely.

Additionally, since I would wager that none of us have studied the motivations of mass shooters to find out exactly WHY they picked a certain venue it doesn't have any merit to say they definitely did or did NOT choose a venue because it was a gun free zone. Some of you are making assumptions like they are facts. The bigger question is whether or not a gun free zone does anything to stop acts like this from occurring when it clearly doesn't. The next question is, if it does happen isn't there some chance an armed response could have changed the outcome? I think the answer is that sometimes it has and sometimes it hasn't but we can also see that having NO guns never helped.

beatledog7

September 1, 2012, 11:20 AM

Mass shootings can happen anywhere there are people, including places where firearms are not allowed. Historically, determined killers seem to be able to figure out a way to strike whenever, wherever, and whomever they choose, and we simply cannot know in advance what choices they will make. Often, we don't know why they choose one place over another.
There is nothing in the OP's data or any other data that I can find which lends any credence to the notion that a disarmed society is a safer society or that the existence or availability of firearms makes a mass killer from someone who, in the absence of a gun, would not be. If a killer chooses to use a firearm, he or she has gone to some degree of trouble to facilitate that choice, a clear indication that the killer was determined enough to find a way, gun or not.

So, we can reach some relevant (from a RKBA perspective) conclusions:

1) Being armed will probably not prevent one from being a victim if he/she has been selected or happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There is little data regarding how many of the victims of mass shootings were carrying a firearm but had no chance of deploying it or chose not to deploy it. If a random person is carrying a concealed handgun, the shooter can't tell, and a concealed pistol will not act as a bullet shield. A CCW holder who witnesses an event is under no compulsion to state whether he or was carrying at the time.

2) Being armed might or might not put one in a position to stop or hinder a mass shooter.

We know that in some cases of mass shootings there were law-abiding civilians with firearms present who did not act or could not act to stop the shooting. We also know that some shooters have been subdued by citizens without firearms. In either case, the killer is on offense--he knows what he is about to do, and the rest of us do not. That gives him the advantage.

3) Creating gun-free zones has little to no effect on a would-be shooter.

The OP's detailed data reveal nothing conclusive about whether gun-free zones make any difference at all. It's been said many times: a law breaker doesn't respect gun-free zones. The prevalence of murder-suicides in the OP's data indicates that a lot of mass shooters have no intention of surviving the event, and in those cases the potential deterrence value of a gun in the hands of a permitted civilian is absent or at least irrelevant.

4) We have no formula for accurately predicting who the next killer will be.

Antis like to argue that many of the mass shooters in recent history obtained firearms and ammunition legally, so it is clear that current laws don't do enough to screen out potential murderers. What they fail to acknowledge, however, is that the laws regarding who can get a driving license fail to screen out drivers who will eventually cause a fatal crash, or that turning 21 doesn't suddenly make one a responsible drinker. Simply put, if we try to create a system that restricts access to a potentially harmful thing to all but those whom we can be certain will never cause harm with that thing, we will all have nothing. Not even salt or sugar. We could not, under those conditions, claim to be a free people.

In the end, I agree with jon in wv: there doesn't seem to be a single case in which the absence of all other guns made a mass shooting less devastating. Antis like to argue that civilians pulling pistols would lead to a blood bath far worse than a single shooter can cause, but ZERO evidence of this has ever crossed my desk.

michaelbsc

September 1, 2012, 12:08 PM

.... What they fail to acknowledge, however, is that the laws regarding who can get a driving license fail to screen out drivers who will eventually cause a fatal crash...

Thinking along this line, when dealing with someone who will only discuss things at a gut emotional level (some of my cousins) there is probably merit in making a Reductio ad absurdum argument that since driving laws are clearly incapable of screening safe drivers only professionally licensed vehicles and drivers (analogous to the police as professional gun carriers) should be allowed on highways.

"We should all turn in our cars to make the highways safer because they would be POV free zones."

I know that there are some folks who already think private vehicles should be outlawed, but I think the vast majority would back off from from that if you push the analogous argument to them. Americans want their car.

Double Naught Spy

September 3, 2012, 08:59 AM

2012 - Gunman fires on vehicles on highway for some 10 minutes, striking 1 person (while in driveway) and later fires on SWAT team hitting armored personnel carrier several times, north of Seattle, Washington state. Single gunman found dead (attempted, but apparently poor marksmanship).
http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/02/us/washington-shooter/index.html?eref=mrss_igoogle_cnn
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/police-shooter-firing-at-swat-police-officers-near-arlington-wash-1-injured/2012/09/02/cbf47426-f571-11e1-863c-fe85c95ce4ed_story.html

Double Naught Spy

May 14, 2013, 08:59 AM

oops, wrong information.

4season

May 14, 2013, 11:00 AM

While reading thru the list I noticed a few things.
1. Some of these examples happened in states before carry permits were easy to obtain. Would this not basically make the state a gun free zone?
2. Some of these examples are direct attacks on police. While we can't know someones intent in these situation, there is a thing called suicide by cop. I don't think you can include these in mass shooting because the cops are targets.
3. Many of these examples are of a domestic dispute nature. I don't think you can classify these as mass shootings because it would appear that the killer simply wanted to do away with their family. While it is horrible and normally is mental issue related I don't think these are true mass shootings where normal members of the public at large are targeted.
4. Some of these examples have happened beyond a "gun buster" sign. While some states these signs don't have any legal status, here in Tennessee violating them is a class b misdemeanor. Even when there is no force of law behind these signs, many people respect them either thru ignorance or just basic common courtesy. I don't think you can fairly group these in with "non-gun free zones."
5. Some of these examples are workplace violence. Like the family shootings these are horrible and committed by someone with extreme mental problems. But to group these in with mass shootings I think is a characterization. I know this is the weakest of my points so let me explain. I think of a "Mass Shooting" as a terrorist style attack. The general public is targeted. The idea is to scare the general public and get glory for the killer or the killer's cause. I group the workplace killings in with family killings because many people are closer to their coworkers than they are to their own family. In these instances many times the killer blames their boss or coworkers for ruining their life so the are exacting revenge, just like the family killings.

Now I am by no means saying that "Mass Shootings" only happen in "Gun Free Zones." However if you look at the percentages it is much more likely. Also on the point of the letters that murder/suicide killers leave not mentioning the reason they chose a gun free zone, these killers are out for celebrity. Why would they mention their own cowardliness in their final words? While I can appreciate your research I still feel that I am more likely to be a victim in a "Gun Free Zone" than I am when I am legally allowed to carry my gun.
Now I am not saying that "Mass Shootings" only happen in "Gun Free Zones"

TX1911fan

May 14, 2013, 04:07 PM

DNS, correct me if I am wrong, but I think what you are trying to say in a nutshell is this: the vast majority of mass shootings, and indeed maybe all of them, do not seem to correlate with gun-free or non-gun-free zones. If we insist on making the argument that shootings ONLY happen in gun-free zones, it is too easy to be proven wrong, and hence that argument damages, and does not help, a pro-gun rights stance. We should stop making the argument and argue instead that the evidence suggests that mass shootings happen just as often in gun-free zones as in non-gun-free zones, and hence gun-free zones do not work. I think that is the more powerful argument anyway. Criminals don't care about laws, if they did they wouldn't be out looking to murder dozens of people in the first place.

we are not amused

May 14, 2013, 05:53 PM

So "Gun Free Zones" are just peachy, and we need more of them since they are so effective?:barf:

we are not amused

May 14, 2013, 06:43 PM

DNS, correct me if I am wrong, but I think what you are trying to say in a nutshell is this: the vast majority of mass shootings, and indeed maybe all of them, do not seem to correlate with gun-free or non-gun-free zones. If we insist on making the argument that shootings ONLY happen in gun-free zones, it is too easy to be proven wrong, and hence that argument damages, and does not help, a pro-gun rights stance.

If what you are saying is DNS's intent, should we be making the anti's point for them?

If they aren't smart enough to figure it out on their own, (and they haven't yet, despite this argument having been out there a lonnng time!) should we be helping them?

By the way, I don't at all accept his premise that his list all happened where guns were permitted, or that the Waco massacure was by the Branch Davidians, I seem to remember a FLIR video that showed the FBI firing into the burning building, and the fact that the BATF lied under oath to get their original Search Warrant, and that they fired first. I look at Waco as a Government Massacre.

A good point about the fact that many of the shootings occurred in Public places, prior to Concealed Carry laws being enacted, which made them De Facto gun free zones.

Double Naught Spy

May 14, 2013, 07:45 PM

1. Some of these examples happened in states before carry permits were easy to obtain. Would this not basically make the state a gun free zone?

Cite specific examples, laws and dates. However, I suspect some of the incidents to which you are referring occurred in homes or private property and hence not part of statewide gun free zones as you claim.

2. Some of these examples are direct attacks on police. While we can't know someones intent in these situation, there is a thing called suicide by cop. I don't think you can include these in mass shooting because the cops are targets.

Doesn't matter. Mass shootings are defined (paraphrased from memory) as 4 or more people shot by a shooter(s) in a singular incident, not inclusive of the shooter(s). That is the definition. It doesn't have exceptions for the police being attacked, suicide by cop, etc.

3. Many of these examples are of a domestic dispute nature. I don't think you can classify these as mass shootings because it would appear that the killer simply wanted to do away with their family. While it is horrible and normally is mental issue related I don't think these are true mass shootings where normal members of the public at large are targeted.

Doesn't matter. Mass shootings are defined as 4 or more people shot by a person or persons in a singular incident, not inclusive of the shooter(s). That is the definition. It doesn't have exceptions the situations being domestic or not.

4. Some of these examples have happened beyond a "gun buster" sign. While some states these signs don't have any legal status, here in Tennessee violating them is a class b misdemeanor. Even when there is no force of law behind these signs, many people respect them either thru ignorance or just basic common courtesy. I don't think you can fairly group these in with "non-gun free zones."

Cite specific examples and your proof of what you claim.

5. Some of these examples are workplace violence. Like the family shootings these are horrible and committed by someone with extreme mental problems. But to group these in with mass shootings I think is a characterization.

Doesn't matter. Mass shootings are defined as 4 or more people shot by a person or persons in a singular incident, not inclusive of the shooter(s). That is the definition. It doesn't have exceptions for the shooting occurring in the workplace.

If you go back and look up case studies of mass shootings, they are indeed inclusive of police, domestic, and workplace situations.

However, if you are going to rule out domestic, police, and workplace shootings, then you have to rule out most of the school mass shootings as well because the shooters are often suicidal (suicidal by cop), know people being shot, and are workplace shootings in some cases as well with the students in a work environment as subordinates to teaching supervisors. Such disallowances would include incidents such as Columbine and VT.

Pretty much the only sorts of shootings your criteria would allow for would be those situations where the shooter has absolutely no relationship with the location and people being shot and isn't planning on being killed by cops. That is going to lower the number of mass shootings down to an extremely small number of shootings, down to the point of almost being non-issues because of their rarity. The list of mass shootings where the shooter does not know any of the people, isn't an employee or former employee, doesn't have any involvement with the location, etc. is going to be a very short list.

DNS, correct me if I am wrong, but I think what you are trying to say in a nutshell is this: the vast majority of mass shootings, and indeed maybe all of them, do not seem to correlate with gun-free or non-gun-free zones. If we insist on making the argument that shootings ONLY happen in gun-free zones, it is too easy to be proven wrong, and hence that argument damages, and does not help, a pro-gun rights stance. We should stop making the argument and argue instead that the evidence suggests that mass shootings happen just as often in gun-free zones as in non-gun-free zones, and hence gun-free zones do not work. I think that is the more powerful argument anyway. Criminals don't care about laws, if they did they wouldn't be out looking to murder dozens of people in the first place.

Excellent synopsis for the most part. Gun free zones don't work, but the key point here is that neither do guns allowed zones, especially in light of the argument that keeps getting made how mass shootings only or primarily happen in gun free zones. This claim is a blatant misrepresentation.

TX1911fan

May 15, 2013, 05:18 PM

amused, I don't think you understood my point, or DNS's point. I am not making the antis point at all. What I am saying is that by always claiming that shootings ONLY happen in gun-free zones, we allow the antis to contradict us too easily, which weakens us, since this is absolutely NOT true. Mass shootings happen all over. Can they more easily take place in gun-free zones? That is possibly true, and logically it seems so, and there is evidence that mass shootings have been stopped by people with guns, but it is not a correlation that gun-free zone = mass shooting and non-gun free zone does not equal mass shooting.

It is simple enough to state that gun free zones do not prevent mass shootings, as evidenced by all of the mass shootings that have happened in them. Why must we try to take the argument further and state that no mass shootings happen in non-gun free zones, a statement which is categorically and demonstrably false.

BTW: Maurice Clemmons was released from prison by revered, by some, former governor Mike Huckabee.

alsaqr

May 15, 2013, 06:36 PM

Deleted by alsaqr.

JRH6856

May 15, 2013, 09:10 PM

one common denominator, in each of those mass shootings none of the victims shot back at their murderer.
Not true. Better check your facts. :rolleyes:

TrickyDick

May 15, 2013, 10:41 PM

1993 - Branch Davidians mass murder of numerous members in compound by firearm to prevent flight when building caught on fire. Autopsy records indicate that at least 20 Davidians were shot, including five children under the age of 14.

Um, no. they were burning alive. I would rather be shot than burned alive.

r1derbike

May 15, 2013, 11:00 PM

I don't know why but, the film "Prizzi's Honor" popped into my head, and I thought, "I wonder what the stats are with with both husband and wife armed in the household? And why and who was the unlucky spouse"? If I had to guess, I'd assume males are the madmen in these situations, because of track record? Thoughts or links?

Double Naught Spy

May 16, 2013, 12:49 AM

Um, no. they were burning alive. I would rather be shot than burned alive.

Not only were not all "burning alive" as you noted, but several didn't even test positive for carbon monoxide. However, if you have some solid evidence to the contrary that they were able to leave by their own free will and simply killed themselves, including the children, I would like to see it.

TrickyDick

May 16, 2013, 10:37 AM

To this day, no one has been charged or been blamed for the death of the Branch davidians, except those who are already dead. The Waco massacre was botched then covered up. The ATF also trapped them by destroying the building over the entrance to the bunker. the building then caught fire from the Pyrotechnic CS grenades and the BD's couldn't escape. I know people were shot, but it wasn't to prevent escape.

TrickyDick

May 16, 2013, 11:00 AM

according to the UK report, the gunshot wounds are inconclusive due to the vast quantity of live ammo surrounding the bodies. but I'm not here to argue, I'm just not going to buy into the idea that they were a crazy cult who deserved it. I've done some research on the incident, and am not convinced it played out the way it was said to.

Double Naught Spy

May 16, 2013, 05:23 PM

according to the UK report, the gunshot wounds are inconclusive due to the vast quantity of live ammo surrounding the bodies.

When then your source is exceptionally dubious. Live ammo doesn't pose a serious threat by itself. It requires a barrel for the bullets to go ballistic. Otherwise, you have bits of case shrapnel that can fly about, but generally poses no real risk.

Check out the ammo exposed to fire here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SlOXowwC4c

The ATF also trapped them by destroying the building over the entrance to the bunker. the building then caught fire from the Pyrotechnic CS grenades and the BD's couldn't escape.

Not all the deceased were recovered from a bunker. The autopsy study of the victims discusses them by injury type and locations where found. With gunshot wounds, listings are made as to suicide or homicide. Note all the homicides of people NOT recovered a bunker.

You can argue the point that such deaths weren't to prevent escape, and that is fine, but it is a mass shooting based on the number of homicides during a singular event.
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/pdf/Graham.pdf

Vern Humphrey

May 16, 2013, 05:44 PM

VA Tech took place because the shooter was a student there not because no one would have a weapon.
And you know that because he personally told you?

You miss the point -- he was able to kill so many because all his victims were helpless.

Warp

May 16, 2013, 05:51 PM

And you know that because he personally told you?

You miss the point -- he was able to kill so many because all his victims were helpless.

Not having a firearm does not make one helpless. At least not somebody who is able bodied, or at least partially so.

Sure, possessing a firearm along with the will, and ability, to use it effectively makes a HUGE difference, but not having a gun does not = helpless.

Vern Humphrey

May 16, 2013, 06:02 PM

Not having a firearm does not make one helpless. At least not somebody who is able bodied, or at least partially so.

Sure, possessing a firearm along with the will, and ability, to use it effectively makes a HUGE difference, but not having a gun does not = helpless.
How many times have you, personally, gone up against a man with a gun, who was actively killing people, and been the winner?

How many people do you personally know who accomplished that feat?

JRH6856

May 16, 2013, 07:12 PM

What might be worse is being armed with a gun and still feeling helpless.

Imagine you are in a movie theater. The movie is an action flick and has your attention. At some point, you hear screaming and realize the last few shots you heard were not consistent with the action on screen. You immediately go into Condition Orange and try to identify the source of the shots. You see two people firing at each other.

Two gang-bangers going at each other? A random shooter and a heroic CCW responder? Which is which? How can you tell? What do you do? Do you go Condition Red and get involved or get the heck outta Dodge?

Vern Humphrey

May 16, 2013, 07:24 PM

The standard rule, on a range, while hunting, or in a self-defense situation is, "Be sure of your target."

If you are not personally threatened and do not know who is who, take cover and monitor the situation as best you can.

JRH6856

May 16, 2013, 07:33 PM

^^^I've always taken the "self" part of self-defense very seriously.

Warp

May 16, 2013, 08:56 PM

^^^I've always taken the "self" part of self-defense very seriously.

This is kind of like the people who say "it's called concealed carry", when open carry is up for discussion. Much of the time it's only called concealed carry because the person saying (or typing) it chose to call it that. Much of the time it is called self-defense because the person saying (or typing) it chose to call it that. Not because that is all that it is and nothing more.

Know your state laws, of course. Know what your moral compass tells you is best. There are LOTS of factors to consider. And no choice is definitively correct until viewed with the 20/20 vision of hindsight...and even then it probably won't be definitively 'correct'.

If you choose to make it self defense and nothing more, as a private citizens, that's fine. That's your choice, and it is yours to make.

Some choose differently.

See my sig.

How many times have you, personally, gone up against a man with a gun, who was actively killing people, and been the winner?

How many people do you personally know who accomplished that feat?

That must mean it is impossible and you are helpless. Your plan, if you are ever caught without a firearm for a situation like that, is to take a knee, bow your head, and wait to be executed, I assume? No use in fighting back in any way because you can never accomplish anything without a gun, right?

JRH6856

May 16, 2013, 09:24 PM

This is kind of like the people who say "it's called concealed carry", when open carry is up for discussion. Much of the time it's only called concealed carry because the person saying (or typing) it chose to call it that. Much of the time it is called self-defense because the person saying (or typing) it chose to call it that. Not because that is all that it is and nothing more.

Know your state laws, of course. Know what your moral compass tells you is best. There are LOTS of factors to consider. And no choice is definitively correct until viewed with the 20/20 vision of hindsight...and even then it probably won't be definitively 'correct'.

If you choose to make it self defense and nothing more, as a private citizens, that's fine. That's your choice, and it is yours to make.

Some choose differently.

See my sig.

As I described, it's not that simple. I can defend myself because if I am being attacked, I know who is the agressor and who is not. When other people are involved, it is not that clear cut. I will defend myself and any others whom I know to be dependent upon me for their defense, whenever and however possible. But someone who is unknown to me? That is a completely different story.

Warp

May 16, 2013, 09:29 PM

As I described, it's not that simple. I can defend myself because if I am being attacked, I know who is the agressor and who is not. When other people are involved, it is not that clear cut. I will defend myself and any others whom I know to be dependent upon me for their defense, whenever and however possible. But someone who is unknown to me? That is a completely different story.

And you are completely free to make that decision however you see fit, which of course includes the way you just said it.

JRH6856

May 17, 2013, 09:34 AM

And you are completely free to make that decision however you see fit, which of course includes the way you just said it.
No, Warp, you miss the point. I am not "completely free", I have a responsibility. Whenever we choose to exercise our rights, we have a responsibilty to do so wisely and in a manner that interferes least with the rights of others. Your sig line misses the point as well. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do the wrong thing. Especially so if they do the wrong thing in the name of doing good.

I am not free to choose whether of not to defend a stranger. My first responsibility is to defend myself and those dependent upon me. And defending oneself also means defending oneself from the consequences of wrong action by trying to avoid such wrong actions. In the case of strangers, if I can act without endangering myself and those dependent upon me to act wisely, it is still my responsibility to act in behalf of the right stranger, not the wrong one. As Vern says, seek a position of safety (which may mean exiting the immediate area) and assess the situation before acting. Sometimes, doing "nothing" is the right thing to do.

Warp

May 17, 2013, 10:28 AM

No, Warp, you miss the point. I am not "completely free", I have a responsibility. Whenever we choose to exercise our rights, we have a responsibilty to do so wisely and in a manner that interferes least with the rights of others. Your sig line misses the point as well. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is that good men do the wrong thing. Especially so if they do the wrong thing in the name of doing good.

I am not free to choose whether of not to defend a stranger. My first responsibility is to defend myself and those dependent upon me. And defending oneself also means defending oneself from the consequences of wrong action by trying to avoid such wrong actions. In the case of strangers, if I can act without endangering myself and those dependent upon me to act wisely, it is still my responsibility to act in behalf of the right stranger, not the wrong one. As Vern says, seek a position of safety (which may mean exiting the immediate area) and assess the situation before acting. Sometimes, doing "nothing" is the right thing to do.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing

JRH6856

May 17, 2013, 10:44 AM

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do the wrong thing in the name of doing good.

Warp

May 17, 2013, 11:28 AM

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do the wrong thing in the name of doing good.

I get the feeling you are the exact type of person Burke had in mind, or had experience with, when he said/wrote what he did.

Here's another:

“In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing."
-Theodore Roosevelt

Hell, that's sig material

JRH6856

May 17, 2013, 11:48 AM

First, there is no evidence, other than common attribution, that Burke actually wrote that. :scrutiny:

Teddy was wrong but that is not surprising given his somewhat impulsive nature. He is wrong because sometimes, nothing may be precisely the right thing to do. But he is right in that at the moment of decision, a decision to act or not must be made and the worst thing is to be indecisive.

I'm not advocating doing nothing. I am advocating trying to do the right thing and if necessary, taking time to determine what the right thing may be. Having time to do that may often mean looking first to ones own protection and defense.

Quite often, "doing something", especially in haste, is the wrong thing to do. After all, after Sandy Hook, the antis insisted we had to "do something" and jumped into action doing precisely the wrong things.

Warp

May 17, 2013, 11:51 AM

Quite often, "doing something", especially in haste, is the wrong thing to do. After all, after Sandy Hook, the antis insisted we had to "do something" and jumped into action doing precisely the wrong things.

Of course. If you are in a movie theater when shots ring out and you see two guys shooting at each other, don't shoot the family of four huddled together behind the chair next to you. I think that is the analogous lesson to be learned from the antis "do something".

JRH6856

May 17, 2013, 11:59 AM

Of course. If you are in a movie theater when shots ring out and you see two guys shooting at each other, don't shoot the family of four huddled together behind the chair next to you. I think that is the analogous lesson to be learned from the antis "do something".
But what do you do about the two guys shooting? Something? Or nothing? You have to make a choice. Which one do you engage? Saying "Well, I may have shot the wrong guy, but at least I shot someone." is not going to work well in court. Or do you shoot both and hope the jury will understand that you had to "do something" or Teddy would disapprove?

Warp

May 17, 2013, 12:06 PM

But what do you do about the two guys shooting? Something? Or nothing? You have to make a choice. Which one do you engage? Saying "Well, I may have shot the wrong guy, but at least I shot someone." is not going to work well in court. Or do you shoot both and hope the jury will understand that you had to "do something" or Teddy would disapprove?

Too many variables to give a worthwhile answer.

And of course in that situation not shooting may very well be part of the best response.

My comments deal more with your general attitude and statements about general plans than any specific scenario.